Dismissed

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board v. K Devaraju

Karnataka HC14 Jan 2026WA/34/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ appeal filed by KIADB and SLO-I as infructuous. By the time of final hearing, KIADB had passed a resolution to drop the acquisition of the impugned land based on the Single Judge's earlier directive, leaving no substantive question for this Court to consider.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous.

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Vs K Devaraju — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2440-DB WA No. 34 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL

¶10

AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVANA EAST WING RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶11

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-I KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, NO.4/6, 1^ST CROSS

¶13

PALACE ROAD, NEAR MAHARANI COLLEGE BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. H L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

K DEVARAJU S/O. LATE K. KEMPEGOWDA,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:2440-DB WA No. 34 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT ABBENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR D, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R2)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 11.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No17039/2022 (LA-KIADB) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:2440-DB WA No. 34 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶32

The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.1739/2022 c/w WP.No.20229/2022, WP.No.3286/2023, WP.No.4158/2023 and WP.No.5157/2023. Thereby, the learned Single Judge quashed the final notification dated 02.06.2022 issued under Section 28(4) and the order dated 10.12.2021 passed under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development (KIAD) Act, and has directed the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) to consider the petitioner’s request for the deletion of his land from the acquisition proceedings afresh.

¶33

In compliance with the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the KIADB, has passed a resolution dated 03.12.2025, resolved to exclude the petitioner's land from the acquisition proceedings and has recommended the Government to that effect, which reads as follows:

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:2440-DB WA No. 34 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

“16.5. The land in question has been physically visited by Executive Engineer -2 and given a report with Sketch that land bearing SY No.70/1 measuring 02 Acres 23 Guntas is part of the layout and no roads or sites are formed in the said land and the said land is reserved for Park, and the said land is near to Village limits. The said fact is also brought to the knowledge of the Board.

¶38

16.6. On consideration of all the above aspects, the objections and statements of land owner of SY No.70/1 is perused, the report along with Sketch dated 27.05.2025 of Executive Engineer -2 is also considered which says that no road or site are formed in SY No.70/1 measuring 02 Acre 23 Guntas and the said land is abutting village limits. the lands belonging to K.Devaraju bearing Sy No. 66 measuring 04-07 Acres, Sy No.67/1 measuring 03-05 Acres, SY No.75 measuring 04-04 Acres, Sy No.64/2 measuring 01-38 Acres totally measuring 13 Acres 14 Guntas have been already voluntarily given to KIADB. The request of the land owners to drop the land bearing SY No.70/1 measuring 02 Acres 23 Guntas is brought to the notice of the board.

¶39

16.7 After examining the subject thoroughly and after detailed discussions, it is unanimously resolved to send proposal to government to drop the acquisition of land in SY No.70/1 measuring 02 Acres 23 Guntas situated at Bavanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, under section 4 of KIAD Act.”

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2440-DB WA No. 34 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

As the KIADB has already taken decision to exclude

¶43

the petitioner's land from the land acquisition proceedings for which the resolution has been passed on 03.12.2025, therefore, nothing survives for consideration in this appeal.

¶44

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as having become

¶45

infructuous.

¶46

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶47

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board v. K Devaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board v. K Devaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri L Bheema Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ravindranath K Vs the Union of India

The Regional Manager Vs Sri R Sreenivasulu

State of Karnataka Vs B H Balakrishna

K Sheik Ahmed Vs the Tahsildar

A.S Srinivasan Vs the Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited